Views of the Child Reports: Hearing Directly from Children Involved in Post-Separation Disputes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Views of the Child reports are being increasingly used in Canada and other countries as a means of directly obtaining the child’s perspective on disputes between their parents and/or guardians. The reports provide information about the child’s perspective based on one or more interviews with a social worker. Yet, little research exists about their use and impact, the benefits and limitations of the approach, and less about what factors need to be considered in establishing practices and protocols to safely advance children’s views before the court. This article draws on the direct experiences of 24 children between the ages of 6–17 years about their views and preferences during family breakdown. The children describe how they wanted to speak to someone about their views and preferences, raised questions about the accuracy of the reporting of their views, the need for protecting their confidentiality by having a say of what is included in the report, and their support for children’s participation in decision-making post-separation. Practice, research and policy considerations are also highlighted in order for children’s participation to be truly meaningful to them, their parents and the courts.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.059 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".